Monday, April 22, 2013

Cosmocking: May '13!

It's that time again! Blue-green cover! Rachel Bilson! I have no idea who that is! "Stuff You Think He Wants In Bed... But Really Doesn't!" Shit, look at that grammar, I think Cosmo's headline machine is jamming up! They better unclog it quick or they'll have "847 Ways Sex To Man Your Man Sex Man" all over the floor!

There's an actually-quite-good article in this issue about "My First Year as a Woman," by Laura Jane Grace writing about her transition. Cosmo doesn't at all acknowledge that horrible article from a couple months ago where they were making fun of a blatantly-fictional trans woman, but maybe this is a quiet apology? More likely, it was written way in advance and no one at Cosmo even realizes the connection.

Testosterone, one of the hormones that regulates sexual desire, is always higher in the beginning of a relationship for both men and women [...] But as the novelty wears off, less testosterone is produced, and sex with that person seems a little less interesting.

I was going to make fun of this, but it turns out that it's true; barring supplementation or something, people's testosterone always does get lower as a relationship goes on. Because testosterone decreases with age.

Excessive masturbation will tax a man's libido and make it so he doesn't have a lot of mojo left for you.

In other news from 1829, graham crackers will prevent impure thoughts, as will corn flakes, and taking them along with pure living and cold baths can help you avoid the scourge of self-abuse and consequent blindness.

Unless he's blowing off work to get his fix, it's not something that requires therapy, but it does warrant a discussion. "Let him know that you can feel the power of his erection when he hasn't ejaculated in a day or two," says Kerner. "That should give him the hint."

Yeah, I don't think you're going to be able to fool him on this one. I'm pretty sure he can feel the power of his erection himself.

My Boobs Lost Their Power

[Author has breasts. She discusses this.] A huge part of what I appreciated about having breasts was how much men appreciated me having them. As much as dating can suck, the one consistently fun part was the reaction I got when I took of my top. It was like being in Cirque du Soleil without doing any work.

[Author enters a long-term relationship.] I wasn't prepared for the scene that occurred two months into our cohabitation. Him: Getting ready for work. Me: Also getting ready, but in jeans, topless as I searched for my bra. I thought this was a pretty hottish look, but when I walked into the bedroom, he looked me in the eyes and asked where his socks were. It's a strange feeling, as a woman, to feel air against your breasts and be talking about laundry. That's when I realized my favorite party trick was no longer new at this party.

My rack and I entered a mourning phase. We missed even the goofy adolescent attention that we used to get from him--the honk-honks and the Tune in Tokyos that he'd dole out with a dopey grin.

Oh man, I remember when I could freeze a guy mid-sentence and make him turn all goggle-eyed just by showing my boobs. It was from about January to March of 2002. After that, my boyfriend still liked my breasts just fine, but no longer made anime nosebleed faces when I got them out. And everyone I got naked with after that had been in other sexual relationships and thus also gotten over their "anime nosebleed" stage, generally at some point in high school.

Which I was grateful for, because when it's morning and we're getting dressed and we have to go to work and all, I don't really want to be the Cirque du Soleil. I'm very glad I get to decide which times are Sexy Times, instead of getting dragged into it every time I shower or change my clothes.

Then again, clearly I have a lot of philosophical differences from this author, because I have never once felt a twinge of wistful nostalgia for having my breasts honked.

7 Moves You Think He Wants In Bed -- But He Really Doesn't

2. Strongly hint that you're in the mood, then play hard to get and make him work at seducing you

That's actually a good point, except for the part where every other issue of Cosmo lovingly teaches women how to do exactly that.

Also, the reasoning they give for this isn't "because he can't tell with 100% certainty the difference between 'hard to get' and 'actually not wanting it,' and refusing to clarify this is not just annoying, it erodes the meaningfulness of consent in your relationship."

No, it's "Just what a guy wants when he gets home from work: more work." Because "The Chase is a game for those who've just met." (And then the author gives the example of how he dated a vegan girl so he ate vegan food to have sex with her, and that's some serious work. He ate cheeseburgers afterwards though, wink nudge!) And, of course, "we worked hard to catch you in the first place, so let's just enjoy the fruits of our labor."

Oh yeah, that's what women are into: feeling like particularly large fish.

"We're simple creatures with simple needs, and that's why you need to subscribe to an entire magazine about how to find us; how to dress, make up, and present yourself to please us; how to perform a large variety of numbered sex acts upon us; which sex acts you must never perform; and why you're screwing up all your relationships with us. Because we are so simple!"

Cosmo Sexicon: Whipdar

whip-dar, n., A woman's astute ability to sense just how whippable a guy really is.

Does anyone really want to "whip" their boyfriend? (Certainly some people want to whip their boyfriend, and hey, that's just fine if he's into it.) I mean, when I watch TV shows with Rowdy, it's because I think we both enjoy them and we're bonding over them. If I found out he felt "whipped" into it and actually hated the shows, I'd be crushed.

Then again, I live in a universe where people of different genders can enjoy the same activities.

If you simply tell him you're not going to have an orgasm, what he may hear is: "I'm not enjoying this at all. You are less than a man."

Well, tough, because that's not what I said. I am not responsible for things people decide to imagine I said.

Cosmo's advice, however, is that if you're not going to come you should try and make him come, because that'll get it over with, and boy, there's nothing more sexy and intimate than getting it over with.

I get excited when my crush Likes my pictures on Instagram. But he Likes a lot of other girls' pictures as well. We seem to have a good connection in person. Can Liking my photos mean something more?

"Also, apparently breast honking is a thing""... What? Like, I grab your breasts and make car noises. That doesn't sound sexy even in *my* head""I'm not too sure either - let's find out""Honk. Honk. No. No I'm not feeling anything with this one""I just want to watch Cars again, actually""Do you ever wonder if we should actually tell people what we do when they're not around?""Naaaah"

It's probably related to the entire meme of "Oh hey! He touched a breast! That there's a manly man. He even made the ritual honking sound!".

I think, with both breast-honking and it's cousin motorboating, there's this idea that everything associated with boobs MUST be sexy ALL THE TIME!!1! When the activities in question are really just more... sort of entertaining. Cosmo never really seems to have space in their sex advice for "try this, because it will make everyone involved laugh hysterically and then have snuggles."

a) As a purely instrumental thing. "Snuggles make people happy" is no use; they have to work out a way that snuggles are "good for you," are an obligation to yourself or your partner. This usually involves highly suspect understandings of hormones and neurotransmitters.

b) As a thing that is not only unrelated to sex, but might actually be the opposite of sex.

I love masturbation, and I love masturbating with my partner and I love masturbating alone, but ... listen, I DO think it's true that "excessive masturbation will tax a man's libido and make it so he doesn't have a lot of mojo left for you." That has been my experience. I'm a woman and it's also been my experience that if I masturbate excessively I don't have a lot of "mojo" left for my partner. I don't think it is anti-masturbation or archaic to assert these things (I mean, not necessarily, although context does matter). And I also don't think it's ridiculous. Some people's sex drives really do work this way.

Of course, that stuff about hinting to your partner that he shouldn't be masturbating is nonsense. This realization was more useful to me in the context of modulating my own habits than controlling somebody else's. (If you really think your partner's choosing masturbation over you, that should be an explicit conversation with him.)

Couldn't speak for my partner, but I don't really work that way - I mean, in the immediate term yes, but masturbating in the morning does not make me feel less up for sex on the evening. And my orgasms tend to be a lot less satisfying when I am having them less frequently - it's like satisfying extreme hunger with dry, flavorless bread. I no longer feel hungry, but I didn't really enjoy the experience, either.

Which is not to say that anything in your post is wrong. Just sharing a different experience.

Though, to what you said about context: I feel really, really differently about this coming from Cosmo than I would about it coming from, say Scarleteen.

Also, dchari, as you note here: "Some people's sex drives really do work this way." SOME people.

I'm not a dude, and the dudes I've been with have avoided masturbating if they were planning to have sexytimes with me later. But since you and I, both women, have very different experiences -- I find masturbating often makes me feel more sexual, more readily aroused, for the rest of the day -- I'm guessing it's hard to generalize for men, too: there are probably some guys who can't get through the day without masturbating, and don't find it makes a dent.

Same here, Anon. In fact, if I want to make absolutely certain of driving my boyfriend wild, I watch porn before going over to his house. After a masturbation session, I am damn-near insatiable, and he loves it!

" '2. Strongly hint that you're in the mood, then play hard to get and make him work at seducing you'

That's actually a good point, except for the part where every other issue of Cosmo lovingly teaches women how to do exactly that."

Yeah, WOW Cosmo. WOW.

I sort of maybe get where the Boob Power woman is coming from, because (at lease in my experience) new relationships do have a particular flavor that is very nice, and if you're someone who is used to short relationships it can be scary when that starts to fade, because you don't know what will be left when it's gone.

(hopefully what is left when it is gone will be equally wonderful, and if not you will hopefully have a cordial breakup)

All of that said: I find my (male) partner even sexier years into the relationship than I did at the beginning, but living together also makes his nakedness seem a lot less sexual. And I kind of hope he feels the same way towards me? Because I know he find me attractive and does not hold back on telling me that when the context is appropriate. But if I'm topless in the bedroom before work, it probably means I'm running late and can't find my bra.

Hm. I think my view on the Boob Power thing is probably colored by the fact that I'm an incredibly naked person, and tend to lounge around naked in nonsexual contexts with partners all the time. So it probably burns out on my partners a bit faster than average?

But I definitely feel the same as your last paragraph--time has made Rowdy sexier than ever, but much more in a "because we have a sexual connection" sense and much less in a "OMG AN ACTUAL NAKED MAN" sense.

I've been married for two years and my husband STILL has the googly eyed I want to play with them reaction toward my bare naked chest. I'm a pretty naked heavy person in non sexual context too so it's not like he only gets to see them when we're having sex either. I still have the reaction toward his body too, and we've both had many other partners too. I just think some of us enjoy the naked form of those who we are attracted to more than others.

My ex-bf and I were naked all the time when we were home together, and I have to say...his junk never really stopped being compelling for me. I mean, I could carry on a conversation with Naked BF and everything - I wouldn't go all slack-jawed and drool on the floor* - but I was pretty much constantly ogling him to one degree or another. I ogled because it was him, mind you; not because there was novelty to the nakedness itself. My long-term partners and I have always been nudists.

*Sometimes when I was talking he'd deliberately stand in front of me and gyrate. I will admit that this usually made me trail off in mid-sentence and have to regroup (to his endless amusement). But casual nudity, I can admire without being stupefied.

>Excessive masturbation probably will drain the reserves of oomph (regardless of gender or equipment), but the amount of masturbation required to make a serious dent in most people's oomph supply is already a problem independent of performance in bed -- it means, yes, blowing off work, or a general inability to recognize when and where it's appropriate.

>I sometimes stop what I'm doing when my girlfriend changes; I never stop her from doing what she's doing. I suppose I could be said to be dragging her into sexytimes anyway, but that's a separate debate; I really don't see how I'm making it her problem, is the point I want to hit here. I don't think I make the anime nosebleed face.

>If you strongly hint that you're in the mood and then "play hard to get" (ick on the wording, too) I'll assume I misread the signals. I'll be disappointed, but not erotically intrigued.

And completely agreed with it all. Frankly, I masturbate a lot. I commission my partner to do it at work and send me pictures... Shocking that we then get home and fuck like bunnies. You can make any occasion sexy, the sock lady, if she were really that butthurt about it, should've rubbed her breasts and looked down and said "I don't see them!" if she really wanted to turn it into a sexy moment...

I spend 90% of my time at home naked, it would get totally annoying if I was grabbed or hooted at or something every time he saw me.

Yeah! I was gonna say some variation of "make him work as hard as possible to get you" is hella fun and sexy. But my version of that goes "hey.... I want you to have to pin me to get my clothes off. please come try." and then wrestling full of giggles and aggressive makeouts.

Am I alone in cringing every time I hear sexual acts referred to as "moves"? It just makes the whole thing sound like a joyless performance to me. Actually, I think that IS how Cosmo thinks sex should be.

I, too, want to know the outrageous lie that probably-fictional woman told to get a boyfriend!

Cosmo's advice, however, is that if you're not going to come you should try and make him come, because that'll get it over with, and boy, there's nothing more sexy and intimate than getting it over with.

I don't entirely disagree with this advice though, even though the "getting it over with" wording is very crude.

My partner and me have very different sexdrives and have to deal with that. Which will result in often me focussing solely on my partner and attempting to make him climax, without wanting anything done to myself. The trick however is to talk about that and not make it a shameful thing.

A plus though is that stimulating my partner and making him come, is a good way to get myself turned on. I'm someone who gains more excitement by doing than having things being done to me.

Anyway what I wanted to say, is that the act of trying to make someone come, because you know that you are not going to is not necessarily bad, it's the way in which it's done. I genuinely like it when there's more attention to my partner. Often I will simply not feel like having sex, as this has always hurt, but I love pleasuring my partner.

Right, but I think the point was that Cosmo frames this as "don't let him know you're not going to come, because fragile manhood, but pretend you're still into it and pleasure him so the sex can just end already," when what you seem to be saying is "be honest, and then pleasure your partner if that's what you both want because it's fun to make someone you like happy." That's different from what Cosmo said because in Cosmo's tip, the elements of communication and, I would argue, enthusiastic consent are absent (you're being pressured into further sex acts in order to end physicalintrusion or even discomfort, rather than choosing to do them out of affection for your partner). That's what makes it not-okay in my opinion, not the fact that only one person is coming. I feel like a lot of Cosmo's tips might actually be okay if they also advocated honest communication and aware, enthusiastic consent, and presented the same acts in that framework.

So, this guy who ate vegan food in order to sleep with a vegan girl... Did he pretend to be a vegan as well? Or did he pretend to like vegan food while he was secretly hating it? There seems to be some kind of pretend going on here, since he "ate cheeseburgers afterwards". People who pretend to be something they're not in order to get sex are creepy in my book.

The 'not going to come' should be handled better. FWIW, I think the rule is: if one person is lower-libido, have a long proper conversation beforehand out of bed about this, and at the individual time organise whether the 'lower' person is a) feelin' it; b) feelin' it to an extent but not up to orgasm (especially in the case of people who may require half-an-hour or more stimulation to get as far as orgasm and not certain whether an individual effort is going to be worth the trouble); c) up to giving the other person affection and orgasm, or hold them while they do it; or d) so 'off' it tonight they want to sleep and not even think of sex.

Otherwise, if it's just an awkward My Bits Aren't Co-operating Tonight, explain that directly. Go as far as explaining, if true, that you got something out of the experience but you just can't quite get there for now. Unfortunately, Cosmo thinks men and women run non-compatible operating systems, and is not honest enough to explain that being direct is better for the couple than having the other person get festering worries about attractiveness.

Honestly, I've never had much trouble with saying "not gonna happen, you go ahead" or something similar. It probably helps that I married a guy who doesn't consider my orgasms (or lack thereof) to be a direct reflection on his masculinity, though.

I uh... I honestly went to the real (as opposed to sitcom) meaning of "whip" first. I think I'll stay there, thanks. It's much more fun, and doesn't hate women.

As for the breasts thing... christ. It's like they expect women to WANT to go out with a cretinous manchild. There are roughly six billion breasts on the planet, and an effectively infinite number of images of them freely available. Do you really want to hang around with someone whose system crashes at the sight of something that commonplace?

I don't, but then again, I guess I'm about seven years overdue for the funeral of my breasts. Which I didn't even know was a thing. Like, I was supposed to go into deep mourning and stockpile loose-fitting black crepe turtlenecks the first time my boyfriend asked me where I wanted to go for dinner while we were getting dressed? Cosmo terrifies me.

Yay, another Cosmocking finally! ^^ I personally thought this issue of Cosmo was... good (as far as Cosmo goes.) Besides the obvious painfully dull sex tips and the blatant "Men are from Mars/women are from Venus" comments throughout, there were good actual articles. Besides Laura Jane's (really different for Cosmo, sadly) the 'crime report' or whatever the hell they call it was surprisingly good. Usually I look forward to bashing their victim-blaming but they addressed victim-blaming and domestic violence victims in a better way than usual. Is it wrong that I was a little disappointed about not being able to totally hate on this issue??

"whip-dar, n., A woman's astute ability to sense just how whippable a guy really is."My reaction: "You might want to ask before getting the whips out, rather than relying on magical powers of 'whipdar'".It actually didn't occur to me that they were using a somewhat different meaning of 'whippable' until I read the "does anyone really want to "whip" their boyfriend" comment and had a moment of genuine confusion.

Yeah, I was the same. Of course people want to whip their boyfriend! Let me show you my colourful collection of whips! :) With maybe a side of 'uh, how about you ask and work up to it with some light spanking, just going all out with the whip isn't necessarily first date material...'

I read "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus" a couple of years ago. As far as I remember, it was about every relationship containing two different personality types, and although women are usually "from Venus" and men "from Mars", it is not a universal truth and it might even change depending on who they are involved with.

I must say I haven't read the book, just a gazillion articles based on the book when it was at its most popular. However, the idea that "opposites attract", generally, is false. What has actual psychological-empirical support is "birds of a feather...".

I think men and women are "from Earth," and I know I'm not the first to make that joke, but for frickin' seriously. Venus is 460 degrees on the surface and rains sulfuric acid. Mars has an atmosphere mostly consisting of carbon dioxide that is less than 1/100th the pressure of Earth's atmosphere. I don't know what it means to jokingly say people are from them.

Maybe it's easier to say than "women don't like sex and are all flighty and hard to please, and men only want sex and are all cloddish and insensitive," because if you said that, you might sound sexist.

I came across a wonderful book purely by chance a few years ago, and snapped it up: it's called The Myth of Mars and Venus, and is about the actual differences between how men and women communicate, in different social settings in different cultures, with a strong basis in actual research (the author, Deborah Cameron, is a professor, a linguist, and a feminist).

Oh man, I laughed out loud at the part where you said 'and, boy, there's nothing more sexy than getting it over with!' As per usual, another right-on-target, witty, clever and deliciously feminist shoot-down of that hideous magazine. I look forward to these every single month <3

7 Moves You Think He Wants In Bed -- But He Really Doesn't 2. Strongly hint that you're in the mood, then play hard to get and make him work at seducing youSo, this is probably just me being not very well versed on sexiness, but - how on earth do you do the whole hinting and then hard to get thing if you're already in the bed? Put on really sexy lingerie and then hide under a pillow?

If you simply tell him you're not going to have an orgasm, what he may hear is: "I'm not enjoying this at all. You are less than a man."Hmm, since I'm non-orgasmic, does this mean I have magical de-manning powers?

Well, tough, because that's not what I said. I am not responsible for things people decide to imagine I said.On a more serious note, super yes to this, and also to the bit about wanting your partner to enjoy things with you and not feel like they have to or something. (In fact, I have quite a bit of anxiety over people secretly not wanting and resenting things I might ask them for, so... quite the opposite, really).

My favorite part of this month's Cosmo was how on page 184, they suggest "telling your guy about the guy who hit on you at the gym because it makes your man want you more," and then on page 185, one of the "great dating tips from mom" is "don't date women who try to make you jealous. theyre insecure."